2) Group Discussion Questions (post to the Discussion Board in the folder, Assignment 8 - Liability). This part due to be posted by July 22nd.
Liability and the Assumption of Risk 1-6 (Angelique and Josh)
Liability and Assumption of Risk: pages 197-198:
1. The principal, Brent Thomas, can be cleared of all liability if he had made sure that Mr. Banks was adequately trained in how to coach hockey and had provided the team with safe equipment. He would also have needed to make sure that proper supervision was provided which may or may not include the hiring of more than one coach.
2. To determine whether George Banks is liable, the courts would need to determine whether the Ricky Watts was properly trained in how to block a hockey puck. If Mr. Banks did make certain that proper techniques and equipment were used than he would not be considered liable. It would also help his case if he was in the gym (which he may have been-it is not mentioned in the book.)
3. I believe both Mr. Thomas and Mr. Banks can use the 'assumption of risk' defense because as stated in the book, students must be aware that their is an element of risk in participation of athletics. Again, if proper instruction, equipment, and supervision were provided than using the 'assumption of risk' defense seems logical.
4.Guidelines for the supervision of competitive athletic activities:
All students seeking to participate in activities must have written parental consent and written parental waivers on file for each/every activity the student is seeking to participate in.
Proper instruction must be provided to all student athletes involving various routines and exercises.
*Coaches must remember that they have three legal duties by the courts under in loco parentis: To instruct, supervise and provide for the safety of students in their care.
*All coaches must do everything in their power to take prudent steps to prevent harm to students in their care (foreseeability).
*All coaches must make sure that the athletic school grounds are in a safe condition for athletes and spectators including parents and licensees.
*As is the case with any teacher, a coach also must maintain a relationship with their players that is one of respect and dignity and should promote this within all areas of their interactions with the students they work with.
*All coaches must be aware of intentional and unintentional torts. The school district must provide informational meetings and workshops to make this information accessible to all coaches and teachers.
Coaches should report all instances of discipline and injury to the administrators and parents as soon as it is possible. He/she must also follow all aspects of due process when a student athlete is injured or disciplined.
*Supervision of athletes is expected at all times.
5. *Was their a reasonable standard of care based on age, maturity and risk?
*Was equipment provided acceptable and safe?
*Was supervision adequate?
*Was previous instruction on hockey techniques included?
6. The administrative implications would be as follows:
*School district personnel must be aware of the standard of care that must be met as they instruct and supervise students in various activities to which they have been assigned.
*School personnel have a legal duty to intruct, supervise and provide a safe environment for students.
*Reasonable and prudent decisions regarding student safety will withstand court scrutiny.
*School personnel should provide supervision of students before and after the school day.
*Well-planned liability workshops/seminars should be offered periodically to ensure school personnel are aware of limits of liability.
*A higher standard of care is necessary in laboratories, Physical education classes and contact sports.
Liability and School Supervision 1-5 (Veronica, Gary, Jess) p. 199
1. What is the legal issue in this situation? The legal implications for this case are that the teachers have not met there in loco parentis oblications in terms of ensuring safety of students. They disregarded the expectation to exercise proper care to ensure that students are protected from harm. The teachers are at fault for not following duty instruction and there is no defence for failure to take reasonalbe steps to prevent foreseeable injury to students in school.
2. Who is responsible for this incident? The teachers are liable since they have violated a legally imposed duty which has resulted in the injury to students. At all of the schools I have worked at thus far, duty responsiblities have clearly focused on the fact that teachers need to be vigilant, walking around, and preventing mishap from occuring when possible by moderating playground behavior.
3. Can all three teachers be held liable? Since it appears that the teachers were disregarding their primary duties as caretakers in being vigilant, they may be subject to unintentional tort, or negligence. Liability charges may be sustained if the facts reveal that the school personnel failed to act approapriately in a situation involving students. School personnel may be held individually liable for their actions that result in the injury to a student. Individual liablity doesn't usually occur unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that a school employee's action violated a clarly established law and that the emplooyee exhibited a reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiff. Since the teachers were probably witnessed to be sitting around and not actively patroling the area by foot, they may be subject to such liablity.
4. How do you think the court will rule in this case? Give a rationale for your response.
There are two issues that the court may potentially address. "Breach of duty is determined in part based on the nature of the activity for which the educator is held responsible. The three teachers were neglecting to provide adequate supersion as evidenced by them all being located in the same area, sitting in lawn chairs that would not provide adequate visual observation and being involved in discussion as opposed to performing the duty requirements. Additionally, the court may consider proximate cause, "when a causal relationship existed between the breach of duty and the actual injury sustained by the student." The three teachers failed to act prudently while performing their duties. The three teachers could have possibly prevented the injury by providing adequate supervision.
5. Develop a set of guidelines regarding playground supervision.
Lawyer, Dr. Keith Tronc, suggests the following supervision guidelines be implemented in staff guides in school districts so that contractual oblications are transparent and clear to all interested parties.
EFFECTIVE PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION
• Schools rules should be developed and implemented, prescribing teachers’ supervision
duties and proscribing unacceptable or unsafe student behaviours.
• There should be a school policy document, setting out sequential sanction options to be
applied in student behaviour-management programs, with regard to the supervision of student conduct both inside and outside the classroom.
• Teachers allocated by roster to playground duty supervision should take up their position
and/or patrol area as expeditiously as possible, not leaving the area unsupervised pending
their arrival.
• Playground supervision duty should incorporate continuous surveillance of the whole
roster area allocated.
• If the terrain or sight lines of the rostered supervision area do not permit clear vision of all
its aspects, then the teacher should undertake a moving continuous patrol.
• Even if engaged in conversation with students, teachers allocated to playground
supervision duty should maintain a continuous “roving eye” surveillance of the whole area
allotted for their supervision.
• Teachers should not permit discussions with students, other teachers, ground staff, or
parents, or their involvement in and supervision of playground games to distract the from
an effective continuous concern for general safety and should maintain constant overview
of the whole area allocated for supervision.
• “Out-of-bounds” areas should be checked continually for illegitimate occupation by
students.
• Fixed playground equipment, physical education, gymnastics equipment, and any infants’
area, should each be subject to continuous supervision by one teacher specifically
designated for that role.
• There is to be immediate intervention by teachers on playground supervision duty,
preventing any observed dangerous games and activities, with the aim of protecting the
safety of students.
• There is to be immediate investigation of any personal perceptions or third party reports of
dangerous activity in the playground.
• There is to be immediate intervention, by teachers performing playground supervision
duty, into observed bullying or reports of bullying.
• There should be a general understanding by all staff members of the need for informal,
casual, visual surveillance of playground areas within view, even if they are not officially
rostered on playground duty, with a view to preventing or minimising student injury.
• Teachers on playground duty should not undertake any participation in student games that
would prevent them from properly performing there surveillance duties.
• If circumstances permit teachers involvement in student games while on playground duty,
the teacher’s involvement should not be so robust as to cause injury to the children
playing or watching the game.
• If there is a delay in being relieved by the next teacher on roster, then the teacher on duty
should maintain ongoing surveillance and supervision until arrival of the replacement
supervisor.
1) Read Chapter 6
2) Group Discussion Questions (post to the Discussion Board in the folder, Assignment 8 - Liability). This part due to be posted by July 22nd.
Liability and the Assumption of Risk 1-6 (Angelique and Josh)
Liability and Assumption of Risk: pages 197-198:
1. The principal, Brent Thomas, can be cleared of all liability if he had made sure that Mr. Banks was adequately trained in how to coach hockey and had provided the team with safe equipment. He would also have needed to make sure that proper supervision was provided which may or may not include the hiring of more than one coach.
2. To determine whether George Banks is liable, the courts would need to determine whether the Ricky Watts was properly trained in how to block a hockey puck. If Mr. Banks did make certain that proper techniques and equipment were used than he would not be considered liable. It would also help his case if he was in the gym (which he may have been-it is not mentioned in the book.)
3. I believe both Mr. Thomas and Mr. Banks can use the 'assumption of risk' defense because as stated in the book, students must be aware that their is an element of risk in participation of athletics. Again, if proper instruction, equipment, and supervision were provided than using the 'assumption of risk' defense seems logical.
4.Guidelines for the supervision of competitive athletic activities:
- All students seeking to participate in activities must have written parental consent and written parental waivers on file for each/every activity the student is seeking to participate in.
- Proper instruction must be provided to all student athletes involving various routines and exercises.
*Coaches must remember that they have three legal duties by the courts under in loco parentis: To instruct, supervise and provide for the safety of students in their care.*All coaches must do everything in their power to take prudent steps to prevent harm to students in their care (foreseeability).
*All coaches must make sure that the athletic school grounds are in a safe condition for athletes and spectators including parents and licensees.
*As is the case with any teacher, a coach also must maintain a relationship with their players that is one of respect and dignity and should promote this within all areas of their interactions with the students they work with.
*All coaches must be aware of intentional and unintentional torts. The school district must provide informational meetings and workshops to make this information accessible to all coaches and teachers.
- Coaches should report all instances of discipline and injury to the administrators and parents as soon as it is possible. He/she must also follow all aspects of due process when a student athlete is injured or disciplined.
*Supervision of athletes is expected at all times.5. *Was their a reasonable standard of care based on age, maturity and risk?
*Was equipment provided acceptable and safe?
*Was supervision adequate?
*Was previous instruction on hockey techniques included?
6. The administrative implications would be as follows:
*School district personnel must be aware of the standard of care that must be met as they instruct and supervise students in various activities to which they have been assigned.
*School personnel have a legal duty to intruct, supervise and provide a safe environment for students.
*Reasonable and prudent decisions regarding student safety will withstand court scrutiny.
*School personnel should provide supervision of students before and after the school day.
*Well-planned liability workshops/seminars should be offered periodically to ensure school personnel are aware of limits of liability.
*A higher standard of care is necessary in laboratories, Physical education classes and contact sports.
Liability and School Supervision 1-5 (Veronica, Gary, Jess) p. 199
1. What is the legal issue in this situation? The legal implications for this case are that the teachers have not met there in loco parentis oblications in terms of ensuring safety of students. They disregarded the expectation to exercise proper care to ensure that students are protected from harm. The teachers are at fault for not following duty instruction and there is no defence for failure to take reasonalbe steps to prevent foreseeable injury to students in school.
2. Who is responsible for this incident? The teachers are liable since they have violated a legally imposed duty which has resulted in the injury to students. At all of the schools I have worked at thus far, duty responsiblities have clearly focused on the fact that teachers need to be vigilant, walking around, and preventing mishap from occuring when possible by moderating playground behavior.
3. Can all three teachers be held liable? Since it appears that the teachers were disregarding their primary duties as caretakers in being vigilant, they may be subject to unintentional tort, or negligence. Liability charges may be sustained if the facts reveal that the school personnel failed to act approapriately in a situation involving students. School personnel may be held individually liable for their actions that result in the injury to a student. Individual liablity doesn't usually occur unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that a school employee's action violated a clarly established law and that the emplooyee exhibited a reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiff. Since the teachers were probably witnessed to be sitting around and not actively patroling the area by foot, they may be subject to such liablity.
4. How do you think the court will rule in this case? Give a rationale for your response.
There are two issues that the court may potentially address. "Breach of duty is determined in part based on the nature of the activity for which the educator is held responsible. The three teachers were neglecting to provide adequate supersion as evidenced by them all being located in the same area, sitting in lawn chairs that would not provide adequate visual observation and being involved in discussion as opposed to performing the duty requirements. Additionally, the court may consider proximate cause, "when a causal relationship existed between the breach of duty and the actual injury sustained by the student." The three teachers failed to act prudently while performing their duties. The three teachers could have possibly prevented the injury by providing adequate supervision.
5. Develop a set of guidelines regarding playground supervision.
Lawyer, Dr. Keith Tronc, suggests the following supervision guidelines be implemented in staff guides in school districts so that contractual oblications are transparent and clear to all interested parties.
EFFECTIVE PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION
• Schools rules should be developed and implemented, prescribing teachers’ supervision
duties and proscribing unacceptable or unsafe student behaviours.
• There should be a school policy document, setting out sequential sanction options to be
applied in student behaviour-management programs, with regard to the supervision of
student conduct both inside and outside the classroom.
• Teachers allocated by roster to playground duty supervision should take up their position
and/or patrol area as expeditiously as possible, not leaving the area unsupervised pending
their arrival.
• Playground supervision duty should incorporate continuous surveillance of the whole
roster area allocated.
• If the terrain or sight lines of the rostered supervision area do not permit clear vision of all
its aspects, then the teacher should undertake a moving continuous patrol.
• Even if engaged in conversation with students, teachers allocated to playground
supervision duty should maintain a continuous “roving eye” surveillance of the whole area
allotted for their supervision.
• Teachers should not permit discussions with students, other teachers, ground staff, or
parents, or their involvement in and supervision of playground games to distract the from
an effective continuous concern for general safety and should maintain constant overview
of the whole area allocated for supervision.
• “Out-of-bounds” areas should be checked continually for illegitimate occupation by
students.
• Fixed playground equipment, physical education, gymnastics equipment, and any infants’
area, should each be subject to continuous supervision by one teacher specifically
designated for that role.
• There is to be immediate intervention by teachers on playground supervision duty,
preventing any observed dangerous games and activities, with the aim of protecting the
safety of students.
• There is to be immediate investigation of any personal perceptions or third party reports of
dangerous activity in the playground.
• There is to be immediate intervention, by teachers performing playground supervision
duty, into observed bullying or reports of bullying.
• There should be a general understanding by all staff members of the need for informal,
casual, visual surveillance of playground areas within view, even if they are not officially
rostered on playground duty, with a view to preventing or minimising student injury.
• Teachers on playground duty should not undertake any participation in student games that
would prevent them from properly performing there surveillance duties.
• If circumstances permit teachers involvement in student games while on playground duty,
the teacher’s involvement should not be so robust as to cause injury to the children
playing or watching the game.
• If there is a delay in being relieved by the next teacher on roster, then the teacher on duty
should maintain ongoing surveillance and supervision until arrival of the replacement
supervisor.